Give me a couple of hours to get in front of a computer and I can give you an exhaustive rundown of the weirs. Contrary to what big mouth says, the weirs were not constructed for ducks. They were put up as a Marsh management. There are logical reasons for why shrimping was so good before the weirs. Shrimp feed on dying Marsh. The dominant vegetation back there is not adapted to high salinity, and saline adapted vegetation was not colonizing fast enough.

Look at the land loss in the grand isle and Leeville area. That is the purpose of the weirs, to stop that from happening around big lake, due to the large influx of saltwater that the ship channel brings.

I think this says it all. Had they protected/rebuilt the levees along the ship channel instead of building weirs, it would have been more beneficial.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Basic Principles for Fisheries Management in Louisiana

Sportsmen's liberties in pursuing and harvesting fish and game should not be further restricted unless there is sound and compelling scientific data demonstrating a true conservation need. Regulations should not be based on irrational fear that the resource might not remain for future generations; they should be based on sound scientific data showing the resource cannot be sustained for future generations under current management practices.

Sustainable harvests and use of the resources should always be allowed, and the burden of proof for those proposing new regulations should be on those proposing to impose criminal penalties for liberties which have been previously enjoyed. I see no wisdom in adopting restrictive regulations copying the example of neighboring states. Louisiana waters are generally less pressured and allow a more bountiful harvest than neighboring Gulf states. Whenever possible, Louisiana would do well to support the tourism industry and justify the expense of non-resident hunting and fishing licenses by maintaining more liberal harvest limits than other Gulf states. Our "Sportsman's Paradise" allows us to share our resources more liberally.

Some fellows from the site have set up a facebook page dedicated to the S.T.A.R. Boycott:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/712460725459033/

So I'm guessing the guides who are pro ban will refuse to guide sports entered in the star????

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Guides can't fish STAR....


And I have no problem if someone on my boat is fishing it, no one makes choices for others they make there own and 99.9 who hire a guide are not around to see the issues we face everyday so you can't really expect them to not support the CCA if they don't know the facts

Here's a good question. With the early bird registration period already passed, how many people do y'all expect to join this boycott? How many people fish the STAR and how many would it take for this Boycott to be effective? How many people fish saltwater and don't even fish the STAR?

I understand your point. I just don't understand how a guide can claim to ban/oppose CCA when they aren't eligible but constantly bring sports who are registered. Just an observation and not trying to be smart in anyway. I'm still on the wire about the entire thing because I know as soon as I don't register I'll catch a winning fish and CCA knows this is how people think Lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Screw that fish, and their junk truck. And screw the under powered boat.

I'll mount the fish with the boycott CCA sticker stuck on the plaque.

This is the mindset I'm working toward lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Another Reason to Boycott S.T.A.R.: Tripletail regulations passed
 

Lotteries are a tax on poor people and those that are horrible at math. - Dave Ramsey

there is no reason to be 'on the wire', do some independent research on how non-profit conservation organizations work, how they are funded, how they are limited in what they can and can't do, and make your decision there. They can only do so much, they are limited by money. Take what you read and hear on the internet with a grain of salt. There was a thread about conservation organization facts and myths on here a while back, look it up. We would be MUCH better served if people would stop getting on a computer or phone and typing what is wrong with xyz organization, if they would volunteer their time and 'expertise' and show them the way, lead by example. Its easy to bash, but when the chips are on the table and its time to put up or shut up, most just stay behind the computer screen. I have nothing else nice to say here so that's my rant. Its painful to watch this unfold with all the mistruths and half-truths being spouted out. Just do your own research is all, or better yet go to a meeting or call and talk to some of these folks and ask them, don't just write an email, give them a call:)

Very well said.

For the record, I have not bashed CCA. The only negative I've stated was fact in that S.T.A.R. is a cheated system. There is no organization that will make everybody happy or without some level of corruption. Even if a new organization is formed as mentioned before, in time greed will sneak in and control at least part of it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I'm Republican but take Democrats fishing??

sorry, that wasn't directed at you but to everyone really:) but....how is the STAR a cheated system?

there may be people cheating in the tournament but that isn't the system, that's on the people fishing the tourney

When I personally know someone who caught a fish on private waters and the place, date and name were reported and no polygraph is given I consider that a cheated system.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

One thing I've learned is that most parties are much more likely to misrepresent things in verbal communications than in writing.

The content of written communications is much easier to verify. It is much easier to recall accurately after the fact.

In contrast, holding people accountable for what they say in verbal communications is very difficult. Everyone knows this, so they'll say things verbally that they won't commit to writing.

The converse is also true. It is less common for an honest person to have their written communications misrepresented by less honest parties. And it's pretty easy to point out the duplicity when it does occur.

Those favoring verbal communications often have an ulterior motive.

but its not public, you have to sign in to see it :cry:

someone created an account for me there that I did not want and I prefer not to sign in at facebook EVER, for my own reasons.

I don't have it either... I'm still alive too, unreal

I get that. There's lots of venues that I avoid: twitter, instagram, etc. I didn't even have a cell phone until 2009 when I went to work for the Air Force. I also try and keep text messaging to a minimum.

I've found Facebook fairly useful for keeping lots of friends and family informed and updated on what's going on without a lot of repetitive stuff. I also like Facebook as an electronic platform for our children to stay connected with friends and family without some of the darker side of how teens use electronics today. It's not foolproof, but it is easier to for parents to monitor than many other options.

I hear ya, I spend enough time on FishBook - don't need to diversify yet!

My motto is if they need to be in the loop, they stay informed through my texts.

My wife had it for a while, but I got pretty upset at the insight into my life that people I chose not to stay in touch with had. I was at best buy one day and had someone I hadn't seen in years tell me how good the leveling kit and tires looked that I had just installed. I said "Say whaaaaaaaaaaaat???". She doesn't have Facebook now, and we spend more time together :)

Boycott the S.T.A.R.: Redfish starving in Big Lake
 

Red Drum Are Starving in Calcasieu Lake, Especially Bull Reds

As it happens, my colleagues and I have weighed and measured many hundreds of fish caught in Calcasieu Lake in 2011, 2012, and 2013. This large data set allows assessment of fish health by quantifying the ratio of a fish's actual weight to its expected weight based on its species, length, and time of year. This ratio is called the relative condition factor, Kn. A Kn = 1.0 is a healthy fish whose weight is the same as the typical weight of that species and season based on a large statewide data set of thousands of fish. Relative condition factors less than 1.0 are fish that are overly thin, often because of insufficient forage. Kn = 0.9 would be 90% of the expected weight (a fish that should weigh 3.0 lbs only weighs 2.7 lbs).

The attached graph shows mean condition factors for red drum from Calcasieu Lake by length class and year. You can see that most length classes and years are thin, showing an insufficient food supply for the population of fish, and that the larger red drum are having a particularly hard time maintaining body condition. As condition factors drop from 1.0 to 0.8, both fecundity rates and survival rates decrease dramatically. (Being 10-20% underweight significantly decreases the number of eggs and also puts energy reserves dangerously low.) Keep in mind that the graphs show the mean values. About half the fish in any group are thinner than the mean, and these fish are strongly at risk.

It takes some work and careful interpretation to discern from the data whether the most likely cause of the poor condition is the destruction of oyster reefs, the management of the weirs, saltwater intrusion, change in speck limit, erosion, or some other factor. Analysis of similar data for four species (red drum, black drum, gafftops, and specks), combined with the healthy relative condition factors observed by the USGS before 2005 and data from other locations suggests that oyster reef destruction is likely the strongest contributor to decline of body condition in redfish.

very well put together. seems we have all the evidence needed

im sure that based on this evidrence the black drum are also in the same situation since they are so very closely related

Now that is scary numbers. Something needs to happen and quick.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Excellent insight. We'll post on black drum in a few days.

I applaud your research here . . . but it is only correlational in inference . . . no cause and effect.
And I am not criticizing here - because you did something that the purpose of correlational research suggests. And that is to point out factors which may associated with the health of the species you studied.
But....oyster reefs in themselves provide habitat for trout forage species. The habitat issue...the marsh loss on the southeastern section of the lake that is noted may also contribute to the lack of forage species entering the lake as well as the numbers of the species themselves - such as speckled trout and redfish. This would be certainly a competing hypothesis. But . . .I certainly still will not in any way Boycott the STAR. Maybe it's my age, but I remember the effects of nets for both speckled trout and the lack of redfish in the not-too-distant past. Back then , recreational fishing for speckled trout in terms of numbers was even much poorer than the recent two years. We would not be having this discussion if the politics of anti-netting had not resulted in the favor of recreational anglers. But again, I like what you have found . . . but there may be more competing hypotheses for this cause than you suggest. E-mail me and I'll be happy to discuss this. A look at the most recent marsh loss statistics in area demonstrate alarm especially for speckled trout unless you believe in the tide-runner theory.

people have been calling to boycott the STAR because CCA has done nothing since its gill net victory but restrict fishermens rights to catch and keep fish as we have always done and they have been doing this more and more lately by ignoring the scientific evidence saying not only there was no reason to do it but that it would cause overpopulations and issues related to that such as not enough food supply for healthy fish resource management.

even though all sane people were and still are in favor of the gill net ban, if you stop and think about it, really think about it, the gill net ban was another restriction of the rights of fishermen.

in truth they haven't changed in that they always work against the benefit to fishermen, its just we were in agreement with them for one issue that gill nets had to go and since then we are realizing that they are NOT on the side of recreational fishermen.

they never were on our side they just happened to champion a cause that everyone supported weather you were on the side working for fishermens rights or against them.

We've given a lot of consideration to competing hypotheses, and there are most likely many contributing environmental factors to the decline of fish condition.

The loss of marsh is certainly important. However, if the marsh loss were the dominant factor, then one would expect that the fish most strongly dependent on the marsh (speckled trout and shorter length classes of redfish) would be most strongly impacted. We find the opposite. The most strongly impacted fish are the more benthic species and the fish most strongly associated with oyster reef habitat: black drum, gafftop catfish, bull redfish. The shortest length classes of redfish and specks are the least impacted. We expect to post additional data in coming days as the discussion develops. The most convincing evidence of the role of oyster reefs will be if the fish condition rebounds with the oyster stocks.

USGS data showed that prior to 2005, fish condition in Big Lake was above the long term statewide average with mean Kn 1.03 +/- 0.02. The main reason to boycott the S.T.A.R. is because CCA has been pushing fishing restrictions since 2000 when they should have been more focused on habitat issues (oyster reefs, weir management, saltwater intrusion, marsh loss, erosion, etc.)

I see you are making your rounds.

If my memory serves me correctly . . . the purpose of the lower creel limit as well as the two fish over restriction on Big Lake and Sabine (as well as areas nearby) was never a "scientific" endeavor although the many pictures of huge stringers strapped over wade-anglers backs supported some concern over numbers. The restrictions were proposed at the time to support a "trophy trout lake" in Big Lake just like we had trophy and quality bass lakes. Whether or not the average size in trout samples have increased is still questionable . . . or I haven't seen any data on this as yet.

The trophy trout aspirations missed the scientific need to feed trout sufficiently to support fast growth rates. Specks are not long lived, and if they are not fed very well and growing very fast, you don't get good numbers of big trout. Tournament results are more anecdotal than scientific, but since 2005, most tournaments have been won with smaller trout than previously. Our data also shows that the longer trout in recent years have been thinner which suggest slower growth rates and lower egg production.

This dynamic is well known in the bass world where one needs to control the bass population relative to the food supply to produce good numbers of trophy bass. Recent efforts in the basin failed to produce a trophy bass fishery because the bass were not growing fast enough or living long enough. Producing trophy fish in good numbers requires much more than tighter harvest restrictions, and in these two cases, tighter harvest restrictions actually had a negative impact.

See the LDWF report on Basin Bass here:

http://www.wlf.louisiana.gov/sites/d...1o-01-2012.pdf

It would be nice to see that kind of science BEFORE more restrictive limits are implemented to determine the likelihood of delivering on the promise.

MathGeek, you must admit though that this type of data did not exist before the 15- trout and associated length restrictions were put in place. In fact, we did not have any scientific results on the bass data from quality and trophy lakes that were published that I know of back then as well.
As for trout, the "gamefish" status was purely a political designation as I hope you are aware of. Biologists' data shows the population pie...and politics decides who gets the percentage of cut - commercial or recreational sectors.
I understand your exasperation with CCA as written, but other psychological data such as "Approach/Avoidance" would seem to give evidence for more political action on the part of a stronger push within CCA ranks to take a deeper look at these issues before action is called. Pushing a boycott of STAR would definitely usher an Avoidance response from both Administrative- and most of the membership ranks- of CCA.

The S.T.A.R. Boycott is about taking money out of the hands of parties who have proven to be ineffective and unproductive because they consistently push for harvest restrictions rather than habitat protection. Unless CCA feels it in the pocket book, I would not expect them to change their modus operandi.

Wasn't it the GCCA that got the commercial netting Stopped?

they dropped the G after that, for the most part its the same organization

Eman is correct
 

CCA has never had a gill net victory as mentioned above. When the gill net ban was pushed, accepted and passed as law in Louisiana, it was done so by GCCA. That group was completely in tune to recreational fishermen and ran by ALL volunteers.

NO WHERE near the same organisation . Gcca was a bunch of fishermen and guides and volunteers who got together and worked to get the job done.

Texas guys post pictures of huge trout on stringers
CCA says cut limit

Few Guides go rape 3tail on a once in lifetime trip and post pictures
CCA says need limit

I'm going catch 500 sheephead and post pic to see of we can get limit

dats about da size of it

I see there are quite a few fishermen with valid concerns toward the future of fishing on BL. I also see there is quite a lot of bashing aimed at the one conservation organization that is in place that can give almost immediate help in our efforts to improve and turn around conditions on BL.
I strongly recommend a sit down with the Lake Charles chapter of CCA and prioritize exactly what we want done on BL....Stop Oyster dredging, repair the wash-outs and address the openings of the weirs. I feel that once the ship channel has been contained with just a few openings to the lake, salinities will drop in the lake proper allowing free flowing water through the weirs for most of the year.
I hate the idea of re-inventing the wheel but if CCA doesn't want to get involved in our plight, then by all means stop giving them your money and re-direct these funds to a more local, focused grass roots organization that will stand up for our issues. This organization might have to be started up by concerned outdoorsman such as ourselves. BL Preservation Association might work. Keep objectives simple and few with everyone on board in agreement. A house divided can't accomplish a thing.

This approach seems to down play the fact that numerous concerned anglers and guides have already been doing this for many years. This isn't 2005. CCA has been informed of and has chosen to ignore these important concerns for a looooooong time in favor of other priorities (decreasing speck limits, imposing tripletail limits, banning bowfishing, increasing fees, etc.)

How is your approach different from "give CCA your money for one more year"?

How many years is enough?

If an open meeting with concerned BL fishermen and the LC CCA chapter cannot come up with an agreement of total support of our issues then we know our efforts will have to come from a new grass roots front. I feel this can be set up within a month giving ample time to schedule such a meeting. I would strongly suggest the State Director of CCA be in attendance to give a thumbs up or down to our requests.

I do agree time is of the essence. By mid summer we should all know exactly where the State and CCA stands on BL fishery resources. I would be very careful in biting the hand that feeds the money to accomplish building of rock banks along with closing oyster dredging in BL namely WLF. We must maintain a working and amiable relationship with this State Dept.....just like CCA has done.

I see nothing wrong with having an additional conservation group that is focused and solely committed to the betterment of BL. Pontchartrain has a very active one that seems to be working well.

We already know where CCA stands, as past actions are more telling than present promises. Progress might be possible, but only if CCA realizes that maintaining their present course is going to start costing them in terms of reduced membership. It is a mistake to let them get through most of their fundraising in the current year.

I expect CCA to continue to give lip service to keep membership high and dues flowing in, mainly through S.T.A.R. participation. We really need them to commit to immediately CEASE and DESIST pushing increased regulations without sound scientific support.

Adding agenda items that support habitat issues in Big Lake would be unconvincing without simultaneously renouncing past support for bad policies.

Meaning no disrespect MathGeek but I feel there is an undercurrent of a vendetta placed on CCA by your posts. I would have nothing to do with that. I would rather go forward in the hopes of bettering BL by working with State/CCA and other agencies in an amiable fashion. You seem hell bent on destroying any credibility that CCA has earned in this State. I still believe that CCA has been doing a good job in conservation issues affecting our whole coast as well as our neighbors in the Gulf.

Time to cut limits again big lake big trout pics on cover of LSM.

The main idea of the boycott is to prevent further funding of the group with a proven history of lobbying for restrictive regulations.

CCA cannot correct past wrongs without acknowledging them and being accountable not to repeat past mistakes.

It's not a vendetta (which literally means a blood feud), it's insisting upon moving toward science based management to benefit all stakeholders and away from management based on fear based on the desires of an elite group of stakeholders.

I think of the current boycott efforts as closer to the boycott of Smith and Wesson firearms in 2000 after they got to cozy with the Clinton Administration and the gun grabbers. This boycott was very effective in both sending a message to other companies and also in pressuring Smith and Wesson to publicly renounce their past actions furthering a gun control agenda.

you get MG to speak out in a public setting on this issue and I will donate all my salty cash to keakar:grinpimp: